Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 210 (Thursday, October 29, 2020)

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 210 (Thursday, October 29, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68541-68554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21476]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 571 and 585

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0094]
RIN 2127-AL90

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NHTSA is proposing to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' to update the
child restraint systems (CRSs) listed in Appendix A-1 of the standard.
NHTSA uses the CRSs in Appendix A-1 to test the performance of advanced
air bag suppression and low risk deployment systems in either
suppressing or deploying the air bag in a low-risk manner in the
presence of a CRS. The proposed amendments would ensure that the CRSs
used by NHTSA to test advanced air bags are representative of the
current CRS fleet, and would make it easier for vehicle manufacturers
and test laboratories to acquire CRSs for testing purposes.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to be received not
later than December 28, 2020. Under a proposed phase-in of final rule
requirements, 50 percent of vehicles manufactured on or after the first
September 1st after the publication date of the final rule would have
to be certified as meeting FMVSS No. 208 when tested with the CRSs on
the revised Appendix A-1, and all vehicles manufactured on or after the
second September 1st after the publication date of the final rule would
have to be so certified.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the

[[Page 68542]]

online instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. We
will consider all comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, we will
also consider comments filed after the closing date.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. Telephone: (202) 366-9826.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).
Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information, to the Docket at the address
given above. When you send a comment containing information claimed to
be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter
setting forth the information specified in our confidential business
information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may contact Ms. Carla Rush, Office
of Crashworthiness Standards, Telephone: 202-366-4583, Facsimile: 202-
493-2739 or Mr. Daniel Koblenz, Office of Chief Counsel, Telephone:
202-366-2992, Facsimile: 202-366-3820. The mailing address of these
officials is: the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background on Advanced Air Bags and Appendix A
III. In Deciding To Update the Appendix
IV. Proposed Changes
a. Deletions
b. Updating Existing CRSs With Newer Models
c. Additions
V. Integration of New Appendix A-1 in the Regulatory Text
VI. Proposed Compliance Dates
VII. Benefits and Costs Associated With the Proposed Rule
VIII. Public Participation
IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary

NHTSA is proposing to amend FMVSS No. 208 to update the CRSs listed
in Appendix A-1 of the standard. The CRSs in Appendix A-1 are used by
NHTSA to test advanced air bag suppression or low risk deployment
systems to ensure that they mitigate the risk of harm to children and
infants by either suppressing or deploying the air bag in a low-risk
manner in the presence of a child in a CRS. NHTSA seeks to update
Appendix A-1 to reflect the changes to the availability of CRSs in the
marketplace since 2008, when the Appendix was last updated.
The amendments proposed today would replace or update the
identifying information for all the CRSs listed in Appendix A-1. This
proposal would allow a phase-in of the amendment to give manufacturers
reasonable time to certify their advanced air bag systems using the new
CRSs. To effectuate the phase-in using the regulatory framework of
FMVSS No. 208, this update would move the CRSs that are now in Appendix
A-1 to Appendix A, and reference the new proposed CRSs in Appendix A-1.
If the changes proposed in this NPRM are adopted, NHTSA would test
advanced air bags with CRSs more representative of current CRSs than
those now in Appendix A-1. Accordingly, air bag systems would be
assessed using CRSs that consumers are using in vehicles. In addition,
since the last significant update to the appendix was in 2008, many CRS
models listed in the current appendix have been discontinued, and so
are difficult and time-consuming to acquire. Updating the list of CRSs
would make it easier for vehicle manufacturers and test laboratories to
acquire the CRSs for testing purposes.

II. Background on Advanced Air Bags and Appendices A and A-1

On May 12, 2000, NHTSA issued the Advanced Air Bag Rule (65 FR
30680) in order to reduce the frequency and severity of air bag-related
injuries to small adults and young children. One of the specific risks
that the Advanced Air Bag Rule was intended to address was the risk
that front passenger air bags pose to young children in CRSs. To this
end, the Advanced Air Bag Rule amended FMVSS No. 208 to add new
performance requirements for how the front passenger air bag must
operate in the presence of a child in a CRS.
The Advanced Air Bag Rule allows manufacturers to provide child
protections using one of three compliance options. The first option
requires the front passenger air bag system to automatically suppress
when a child (whether in a CRS or not) is present (``suppression'').
The second option requires that the front passenger air bag deploy only
at a low level of force when a child (whether in a CRS or not) is
present (``low risk deployment'' or ``LRD''). For these first two
options, the vehicle must provide passenger-side protections for child-
sized test dummies in various positions, including in a CRS. The third
compliance option requires the tracking of the passenger occupant's
motion and suppresses the air bag if they are too close to the air bag
(``dynamic automatic suppression system'' or ``DASS''). To comply using
dynamic automatic suppression, a manufacturer must develop an
acceptable test procedure, which must be adopted into FMVSS No. 208
through an expedited rulemaking procedure. To date, no manufacturer has
attempted to certify using the DASS option. FMVSS No. 208 permits
vehicle manufacturers to choose different compliance options for
different performance tests, and is technology neutral with regard to
how a vehicle complies.
For tests that involve air bag performance in the presence of
anthropomorphic test dummies in CRSs, the manufacturers are required to
certify that their vehicles will comply with the advanced air bag
requirements when tested by NHTSA using the CRSs identified in Appendix
A of FMVSS No. 208. As we explained in the Advanced

[[Page 68543]]

Air Bag Rule, NHTSA intended for the CRSs listed in Appendix A to be
representative of a large portion of the CRS market across many CRS
manufacturers. To keep Appendix A up to date, NHTSA amended it in final
rules issued in December 2001 (66 FR 65375) and November 2003 (68 FR
65179) to replace certain CRSs that were no longer in production and to
add two LATCH-compatible CRSs, respectively.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ FMVSS No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems, requires
certain vehicles and DSPs to be equipped with LATCH systems. FMVSS
No. 213 requires CRSs (except for harnesses, car beds and booster
seats) to be equipped with attachments that enable the CRS to attach
to the vehicle's LATCH system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA most recently updated Appendix A in a final rule issued in
November 2008 (73 FR 66786). NHTSA created a new ``Appendix A-1'' to
facilitate phasing-in the requirement to certify vehicles with the
updated CRSs.\2\ Today, Appendix A-1 is the only appendix in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ The purpose of the one-year phase-in was to make the test
burdens on manufacturers more reasonable, as manufacturers had to
certify the compliance of all their vehicles' advanced air bag
systems using the new CRSs. Appendix A-1 listed the new CRSs.
Appendix A was retained with the CRSs it had listed. During the
first year of the one-year phase-in, a specified portion of a
manufacturer's new vehicles had to be certified as meeting the
advanced air bag requirements when tested with the new CRSs in
Appendix A-1, while the remaining portion could continue to be
certified with the existing CRSs in Appendix A. Starting at the end
of the phase-in, all vehicles had to be certified as meeting the
requirements using the new CRSs in Appendix A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The CRSs listed in Appendix A-1 are broken up into four subparts.
Subpart A lists ``car bed'' CRSs that can be used to test the
suppression system of a vehicle that has been certified as complying
with S19 of FMVSS No. 208. Subpart B lists rear-facing infant CRSs that
can be used by the agency to test the suppression system or the LRD
capabilities of a vehicle that is certified as complying with S19 of
FMVSS No. 208. Subpart C lists forward-facing toddler and convertible
\3\ CRSs that can be used by the agency to test the suppression system
or the LRD capabilities of a vehicle that has been certified as
complying with S19 or S21 of FMVSS No. 208. Subpart D lists CRSs that
are or can be used as a belt-positioning seat (commonly called belt-
positioning booster seats (BPBs)) (e.g., combination and 3-in-1 CRSs)
and BPBs that can be used by the agency to test the suppression system
or the LRD capabilities of a vehicle that has been certified as
complying with S21 or S23 of FMVSS No. 208.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ A convertible CRS can be used as is or ``converts'' between
rear-facing and forward-facing use.
\4\ ``Belt-positioning seat'' is defined in FMVSS No. 213 S4 as
``a child restraint system that positions a child on a vehicle seat
to improve the fit of a vehicle Type II belt system on the child and
that lacks any component, such as a belt system or a structural
element, designed to restrain forward movement of the child's torso
in a forward impact.'' A combination CRS can be used forward-facing
or as a booster seat. A 3-in-1 CRS is a convertible CRS that can be
used as a booster seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Development of Today's NPRM

When deciding whether to update Appendix A-1 (68 FR 65188) NHTSA
considers whether a particular CRS (from the appendix in effect and
from the latest Ease of Use (EOU) data) has been a high-volume model,
whether it has mass and dimensions that are representative of many CRSs
on the market, whether its mass and dimensions represent outliers, and
whether a variety of CRS manufacturers are represented in the appendix.
The agency also assesses whether the assortment of CRSs in the appendix
assures that NHTSA will be adequately testing the robustness of air bag
automatic suppression systems under real world conditions.
To develop today's NPRM, NHTSA conducted a systematic evaluation of
the CRSs currently in Appendix A, and of data collected through the
agency's EOU program.\5\ The agency assessed child restraint system
physical dimensions and weight (mass) to identify which CRSs have
dimensions that were representative of the average restraint in today's
market, and which were possible outliers, with dimensions, weight \6\
and/or footprints \7\ markedly outside of those of the ``average'' CRS.
In addition, the agency identified which CRSs had high production
totals (based on confidential manufacturers' data) to determine which
CRSs were likely to have the greatest market share (highest sales
volume).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ The EOU program is a program in which NHTSA rates different
usability aspects of CRSs currently on the market. It is part of the
New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), and is updated annually. The
details of this data collection process are discussed in the
November 2008 final rule (73 FR 66786). NHTSA primarily used EOU
data collected in 2015, which included data on 53 different CRSs
from 27 different manufacturers. EOU data from previous years or
more recent years were used as needed if a specific type of CRS was
not assessed in the 2015 program. In light of the availability of
newer EOU data, references to the 2015 EOU data averages have been
updated to reflect the 2019 EOU data averages.
\6\ Since the CRSs are used to test air bag suppression systems,
it was important to identify which CRSs were the lightest and
heaviest, and those that are representative of the average restraint
in today's market in terms of weight.
\7\ The footprint on every CRS is unique. Some air bag
suppression systems have trouble sensing a CRS if the footprint is
shaped in a way that loads the air bag suppression system sensors or
load cells differently than the CRSs for which the suppression
system was designed to recognize.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We note that, in choosing which CRSs to include in the updated
appendix, the agency sought to ensure that advanced air bag systems
would be designed and calibrated to perform satisfactorily when used
with a wide range of CRSs. For example, because rear-facing CRSs with
either low or high seat back heights can pose challenges for LRD
systems, the agency sought to include rear-facing CRSs of varying seat
back heights for LRD testing purposes. Similarly, because the agency
believes that certain features like handles and sunshields on rear-
facing infant carrier CRSs can lead to false readings by vision-based
sensors used in some advanced air bag systems, the agency includes
rear-facing CRSs that have handles and sunshields in the appendix.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ NHTSA compliance test procedures specify adjustments of the
handles and sunshields to the positions specified in the standard to
ensure the robustness of the advanced air bag system being tested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Changes

After considering the factors discussed in the previous section of
this preamble, NHTSA has tentatively decided there is a need to replace
or update all the CRSs in Appendix A-1 of FMVSS No. 208. This includes
replacing seventeen (17) existing CRSs with eighteen (18) new CRSs, and
updating model identification information for two (2) existing CRSs.
Tables 1-3 below summarize the proposed changes to Appendix A-1. The
following sections will discuss our proposed replacements or updates,
along with corresponding rationale for these proposals.

[[Page 68544]]

Table 1--Deletions to Appendix A-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model name Appendix subpart Model type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DELETIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL GUARD ANGELRIDE #AA243FOF... A Car Bed.
CENTURY SMART FIT 4543............ B Rear-Facing
Infant.
GRACO SNUGRIDE.................... B Rear-Facing
Infant.
GRACO INFANT 8457................. B Rear-Facing
Infant.
COSCO ARRIVA 22-013 PAW & 22-999 B Rear-Facing
WHO. Infant.
PEG PEREGO PRIMO VIAGGIO SIP B Rear-Facing
IMUN00US. Infant.
COSCO TOURIVA 02519............... C Convertible.
EVENFLO TRIBUTE V 379XXXX......... C Convertible.
EVENFLO MEDALLION 254............. C Convertible.
GRACO COMFORTSPORT................ C Convertible.
GRACO TODDLER SAFESEAT STEP 2..... C Forward-Facing.
COSCO SUMMIT DELUXE HIGH BACK C&D Combination.
BOOSTER 22-262.
COSCO HIGH BACK BOOSTER 22-209.... C&D Combination.
EVENFLO GENERATIONS 352XXXX....... C&D Combination.
GRACO PLATINUM CARGO.............. C&D Combination.
BRITAX ROADSTER 9004.............. D BPB.
EVENFLO RIGHT FIT 245............. D BPB.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2--Updates to Appendix A-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model name Appendix subpart Model type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATING MODEL IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EVENFLO DISCOVERY ADJUST RIGHT IS B Rear-Facing
NOW CALLED EVENFLO NURTURE #362--- Infant.
--.
BRITAX ROUNDABOUT E9L02XX IS NOW C Convertible.
THE BRITAX ALLEGIANCE #E9LR4-----.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3--Additions to Appendix A-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model name Appendix subpart Model type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDITIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAFETY 1ST DREAMRIDE SE LATCH A Car Bed.
#IC238--.
CHICCO KEYFIT 30 #04061472----.... B Rear-Facing
Infant.
EVENFLO EMBRACE #315----.......... B Rear-Facing
Infant.
DOONA CAR SEAT & STROLLER......... B Rear-Facing
Infant.
BRITAX B-SAFE 35 #E1A72--......... B Rear-Facing
Infant.
CYBEX ATON 2...................... B Rear-Facing
Infant.
BRITAX MARATHON CLICKTIGHT #E1A38-- C Convertible.
.
COSCO SCENERA NEXT #CC123--....... C Convertible.
GRACO 4EVER ALL-IN-1.............. C 3-in-1.
GRACO CONTENDER 65................ C Convertible.
CYBEX ETERNIS..................... C&D 3-in-1.
SAFETY 1ST GROW AND GO #CC138--... C&D 3-in-1.
EVENFLO CHASE #306----............ C&D Combination.
COSCO FINALE #BC121--............. C&D Combination.
CHICCO MYFIT #04079783--0070...... C&D Combination.
COSCO RISE #BC126--............... D BPB.
GRACO BACKLESS TURBOBOOSTER....... D BPB.
BRITAX GROW WITH YOU #E1C19--..... D Combination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Deletions

Our proposed deletions are based generally on which CRSs do not
offer any unique characteristics and those that have not been in
production for several years. If we propose to eliminate a CRS that
offered a unique characteristic, we attempt to add a CRS that possesses
the same unique characteristic or replace it with a CRS that offers an
alternative unique characteristic. The quantitative details and
photographs of the CRSs currently in Appendix A-1 are found in the
Technical Assessment docketed in conjunction with the 2008 update.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ Docket ID: NHTSA-2008-0168-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Deletion of Discontinued CRSs
Appendix A-1 includes several carry-over CRSs that were also in
Appendix A. These older CRS models and their corresponding sections are
listed below:
Subpart B
[cir] Century Smart Fit 4543
[cir] Graco Infant 8457
Subpart C
[cir] Cosco Touriva 02519

[[Page 68545]]

[cir] Evenflo Medallion 254
Subpart D
[cir] Britax Roadster 9004
[cir] Evenflo Right Fit 245

The agency has confirmed that all of these CRSs have been out of
production for many years and are not readily available for purchase.
Given this, and the fact that most CRSs have an expiration date that is
6 years from the date of manufacture, we believe the proposed deletion
of these CRSs is warranted.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ NHTSA does not require ``expiration dates'' on child
restraint systems. CRS manufacturers developed the expiration date
idea and label CRSs with an expiration date following industry
practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to these carry-over CRSs from Appendix A, we have
identified CRSs in Appendix A-1 that have also been discontinued,
making them difficult to acquire for testing purposes and reducing the
likelihood they are in actual use by consumers. These CRSs and their
corresponding subparts are listed below:

Subpart A
[cir] Angel Guard AngelRide AA243FOF
Subpart B
[cir] Cosco Arriva 22-013 PAW with the 22-999 WHO base
Subpart C
[cir] Graco Toddler SafeSeat Step 2
[cir] Evenflo Generations #352
[cir] Graco Platinum Cargo
Subpart D
[cir] Evenflo Generations #352
[cir] Graco Platinum Cargo

The Angel Guard AngelRide #AA2403FOF, is a car bed with a 3-point
harness. This car bed is no longer in production; therefore, we propose
deleting this car bed from Subpart A.
The Cosco Arriva 22-013 PAW with the 22-999 WHO base is a rear-
facing infant CRS. The model number for this CRS was updated in
Appendix A-1 in 2008 since the previous model number was no longer
available. As explained in the 2008 final rule, this was a CRS that was
mainly distributed to hospitals, health departments or other
organizations. However, the 2008 final rule also noted that the
manufacturer was contemplating phasing-out this CRS, and ultimately, it
was discontinued. This seat was not considered an outlier, and we are
proposing to add a new CRS with similar characteristics.
The Graco Toddler SafeSeat Step 2 is a forward-facing only CRS with
a 5-point safety harness. It was added with Appendix A-1 and it was
among the heavier forward-facing CRSs on the market at that time. The
rationale for including it in Appendix A-1 was its weight and its
uniquely flat footprint. We are proposing to add heavy CRSs to Subpart
C as well as CRSs with footprints that are flat (e.g., large contact
surface area).
The Evenflo Generations is a forward-facing-only combination CRS
with a 5-point safety harness. At the time of the 2008 final rule, it
was among the lighter forward-facing CRSs. It was included in Appendix
A-1 because its footprint was unique and because it was lightweight for
this CRS category. We are proposing to include a lightweight CRS in
Subparts C and D to replace the Evenflo Generations.
The Graco Platinum Cargo is a forward-facing-only combination CRS
with a 5-point harness listed in both Subparts C and D of Appendix A-1.
As part of the 2008 final rule, this CRS was a replacement for the
Century Next Step 4920, and there are no remarkable features that would
warrant finding a comparable replacement for it in this update.
In light of the fact that these CRSs are discontinued and the fact
that many years have passed since our last update, we propose deleting
these CRSs to allow the inclusion of newer CRS models.
2. Deletion of the Graco Snugride #E9L02XX From Subpart B
The Graco Snugride #E9L02XX is a rear-facing infant CRS in Subpart
B of Appendix A-1, with a detachable base. The Graco Snugride was
included in Appendix A-1 in the previous update because it was
lightweight and had a high sales volume in the U.S.\11\ This specific
model of the Graco Snugride is no longer in production. There is a
newer model available, but as will be shown, there are newer
lightweight infant CRSs that are also popular in the market now. As a
result, we propose deleting this CRS from Subpart B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ The inclusion of lightweight and heavy rear-facing infant
CRSs ensure that air bag suppression systems consider a wide range
of weights when identifying these CRSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Deletion of the Peg Perego Primo Viaggio From Subpart B
The Peg Perego Primo Viaggio is a rear-facing infant CRS, with a
detachable base and a 5-point safety harness. It is heavier than the
average rear-facing infant CRSs and has a relatively large base. This
CRS was added in Appendix A-1 in 2008 because we concluded that this
CRS is somewhat of an outlier in terms of its dimensions and unique
footprint, and we believed that testing an air bag suppression system
using this CRS would be a good measure of a system's robustness. This
specific model of the Primo Viaggio is no longer in production. There
is a newer model available, but as will be shown, there are heavier
infant CRSs in the market now and we are proposing one of these with a
similar footprint as the Primo Viaggio. As a result, we propose
deleting this CRS from Subpart B.
4. Deletion of the Evenflo Tribute V #379XXXX From Subpart C
The Evenflo Tribute V #379XXXX, is a convertible CRS with a 5-point
harness. The design and characteristics of this CRS were not evaluated
in the previous update because it was a replacement for a CRS listed in
Appendix A. While this CRS is still under production with a different
model number, we have been informed that it will be phased-out in the
near future. We do not see a need to find an equivalent replacement for
this CRS because it would be redundant with the Cosco Scenera Next, a
proposed addition to Subpart C discussed in the additions section.
Therefore, we propose deleting this CRS from Subpart C.
5. Deletion of the Graco ComfortSport From Subpart C
The Graco ComfortSport is a convertible CRS with a 5-point harness.
The design and characteristics of this CRS were not evaluated in the
previous update because the mold for this CRS closely resembled a CRS
listed in Appendix A. While this CRS is still in production we have
identified other CRSs to add to the appendix with unique footprints and
or dimensional characteristics. In order to properly assess the
robustness of air bag systems we deem it necessary to delete this CRS
in order to accommodate adding one of these newly identified CRSs.
6. Deletion of the Cosco Summit Deluxe High Back Booster #22-262 From
Subparts C and D
The Cosco Summit Deluxe High Back Booster #22-262 is a forward-
facing CRS with 5-point safety harness that can also be used as a BPB.
The Cosco Summit Deluxe High Back Booster was included in Appendix A-1
because of its wide base and because it was a tall CRS. The agency has
identified CRSs that are taller and wider that we are proposing be
included in the revised appendix. While, this CRS is still being
produced under a different model name (with cosmetic differences) we
think it would be prudent to delete this CRS in order to include newer
CRSs on the market that are taller and or have a wider base.

[[Page 68546]]

7. Deletion of the Cosco High Back Booster #22-209 From Sections C and
D
The Cosco High Back Booster #22-209 is a forward-facing only
combination CRS with a 5-point harness in Subparts C and D of Appendix
A-1. The 2008 final rule modified the identification information for
this CRS to one that was more readily available at the time; therefore,
no inclusion criteria was established for this CRS in the previous
update. While this CRS is still in production it is available under a
different model number. Rather than updating the model number again for
this CRS, we are proposing that it be removed to accommodate other
newer CRSs.

b. Updating Existing CRSs With Newer Models

1. Updating the Evenflo Discovery Adjust Right 212 in Subpart B
The Evenflo Discovery Adjust Right 212 is a rear-facing infant CRS
with a detachable base, in Subpart B of Appendix A-1. This CRS was a
carry-over from Appendix A. This CRS is now being manufactured under
the model name Evenflo Nurture, but is equivalent \12\ to the Evenflo
Discovery Adjust Right 212. The Evenflo Nurture #362----- \13\ weighs
less than the average rear-facing infant CRSs in the 2019 EOU program
and is a rear-facing infant CRS with high sales volume in the U.S. We
propose updating the Evenflo Discovery Adjust Right 212 with its
equivalent newer model the Evenflo Nurture #362-----.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Equivalent CRS models have no significant structural or
physical differences.
\13\ When selecting new CRSs for the appendix, the agency sought
to provide, to the extent possible, generic model numbers.
Therefore, the use of hyphens indicates digits in the model number
that are not needed because they indicate changes in soft goods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Updating the Britax Roundabout #E9L02XX in Subpart C
The Britax Roundabout #E9L02XX is a convertible CRS in Subpart C of
Appendix A-1. The 2008 final rule modified the model number for this
CRS to one that was more readily available at the time. Consequently,
its dimensions and design were not taken into consideration in the
previous appendix update. The Britax Roundabout #E9L02XX is no longer
in production. Britax has replaced it with a newer version called the
Britax Allegiance #E9LR4--. The Britax Roundabout had undergone changes
to the design and mold since the last update and most recently it was
renamed to the Britax Allegiance. The Britax Allegiance would not be
considered an equivalent CRS to the Britax Roundabout #E9L02XX, but it
would be equivalent to the Britax Roundabout G4.1 which was its
predecessor. We propose updating to the newer Britax Allegiance because
it is wider than the average footprint of convertible CRSs and its
footprint is uniquely shaped.

c. Additions

Other than the updating of older CRS models with newer CRS models
discussed in the previous section, we are not proposing to maintain any
of the current CRSs in the revised Appendix A-1. This section will
discuss the proposed CRS additions that will comprise the revised
Appendix A-1. (See docketed Technical Assessment for basic
measurements, pictures, and statistical analysis of the proposed CRS
additions.)
1. Addition of the Safety 1st Dreamride SE LATCH #IC238-- to Subpart A
The Safety 1st Dreamride SE LATCH #IC238-- is an infant car bed,
with a 3-point safety harness and handle bar. It is one of the only
readily available car beds on the market; therefore, we propose its
addition to Subpart A.
2. Addition of the Evenflo Embrace #315-- to Subpart B
The Evenflo Embrace #315-- is a rear-facing infant CRS, with a
detachable base, sunshield, and handle bar. It is lighter than the
average rear-facing infant CRSs in the 2019 EOU program with and
without the base. This CRS captures a significant portion of the rear-
facing infant CRS market. This CRS also has a unique footprint
configuration. We believe that testing an air bag suppression system
using this CRS would be a good measure of a system's robustness because
of the CRS's unique base footprint. Therefore, we propose its addition
to Subpart B.
3. Addition of the Doona Car Seat & Stroller to Subpart B
The Doona Car Seat & Stroller is a rear-facing infant CRS and
stroller combo with a detachable base, a sunshield, and a handle bar.
It is significantly heavier than the average weight, with and without
the base, of rear-facing infant CRSs in the 2019 EOU program. Its base
is wider than the average for the rear-facing infant CRSs in the 2019
EOU program. What is of particular interest about this CRS, for testing
purposes, is the weight, the base width, and overall design of the car
seat. This CRS also captures a significant portion of the rear-facing
infant CRS market. Therefore, we propose its addition to Subpart B.
4. Addition of the Britax B-Safe 35 #E1A72-- to Subpart B
The Britax B-Safe 35 #E1A72-- is a rear-facing infant CRS, with a
detachable base, sunshield, and handle bar. It is heavier than the
average rear-facing infant CRSs in the 2019 EOU program with the base.
It has a large base footprint compared to the average rear-facing
infant CRSs in the 2019 EOU data. This CRS has a unique base footprint
because of its flatness. This CRS captures a significant portion of the
rear-facing infant CRS market. Because of its large flat base
footprint, high sales volume, and weight, we believe this CRS can be
considered a good replacement for the Peg Perego Primo Viaggio, which
we are proposing to delete. Therefore, we propose its addition to
Subpart B.
5. Addition of the Cybex Aton 2 #518000-- to Subpart B
The Cybex Aton 2 #518000-- is a rear-facing infant CRS, with a
detachable base, sunshield, and handle bar. It is heavier than the
average rear-facing infant CRSs in the 2019 EOU program with and
without the base. Its base footprint is unique among rear-facing infant
CRSs in the 2019 EOU data because of its shape and because it is
designed to accommodate a load leg (see docketed Technical Assessment
for pictures).
The load leg is an optional installation feature for this CRS.
Based on our analysis we believe that this CRS is somewhat of an
outlier in terms of its weight and by having a unique base footprint.
In addition, if the seat is installed without the steel-enforced load
leg and it is stowed away we think this may challenge air bag
suppression systems that use capacitive sensors. We believe that
testing an air bag suppression system using this CRS would be a good
measure of a system's robustness. Therefore, we propose its addition to
Subpart B.
6. Addition of the Chicco KeyFit 30 #04061472-- to Subpart B
The Chicco KeyFit 30 #04061472-- is a rear-facing infant CRS, with
a detachable base, sunshield, and handle bar. It is lighter than the
average rear-facing infant CRSs in the 2019 EOU program with the base.
This CRS captures a significant portion of the rear-facing infant CRS
market. This CRS also has a unique footprint configuration. It has a
wide base footprint compared to the average rear-facing infant CRSs in
the 2019 EOU

[[Page 68547]]

data. We believe that testing an air bag suppression system using this
CRS would be a good measure of a system's robustness because of the
CRS's unique base footprint. Because of its high sales volume, wide
base, and weight, we believe this CRS can be considered a good
replacement for the Graco Snugride, which we are proposing to delete.
Therefore, we propose its addition to Subpart B.
7. Addition of the Britax Marathon ClickTight #E1A38-- to Subpart C
The Britax Marathon ClickTight #E1A38-- is a convertible CRS. It is
significantly heavier than the convertibles in the 2019 EOU data. Its
footprint is wider than the average for convertible CRSs in the 2019
EOU program. This CRS also has a unique footprint configuration.
This is a convertible CRS with high sales volume and Britax uses
this same shell for other similar CRS models (e.g., Britax Advocate
ClickTight and Britax Boulevard ClickTight), which increases this
shell's market representation. Based on our analysis of this CRS it
meets the inclusion criteria because it is a heavy CRS and has a wide
unique footprint and our data indicates it captures a significant
portion of the CRS market. Therefore, we propose adding it to Subpart
C.
8. Addition of the Cosco Scenera Next #CC123-- to Subpart C
The Cosco Scenera Next #CC123-- is a convertible CRS. It is the
significantly lighter than the lightest convertible CRS in the 2019 EOU
data. It has a smaller than average convertible footprint. This CRS
also has a unique footprint that would have minimal surface area
contact with the vehicle seat. In addition, this CRS captures a
significant portion of the CRS market. Based on our findings we
tentatively conclude these qualities warrant its addition to Subpart C.
9. Addition of the Graco 4Ever All-in-1 to Subpart C
The Graco 4Ever All-in-1 is a 3-in-1 CRS. It is heavier than the
average weight for 3-in-1 CRSs in the 2019 EOU data and heavier than
the average convertible CRS in the 2019 EOU data. It has a wider than
average footprint compared to the averages for convertible and 3-in-1
CRSs in the 2019 EOU program. It also has a flat footprint. Based on
its weight and footprint width and style we propose adding it to
Subpart C.
10. Addition of the Graco Contender 65 to Subpart C
The Graco Contender 65 is a convertible CRS. It was evaluated in
the 2014 EOU program. It weighs less than the average weight of
convertible CRSs in the 2019 EOU program. It has a narrow and deep
footprint compared to the average footprint of convertible CRSs in the
2019 EOU program. The footprint has a unique shape and changes between
the rear and forward-facing installation modes. Based on the dimensions
of the footprint and its uniqueness we propose adding it to Subpart C.
11. Addition of the Cybex Eternis to Subparts C&D
The Cybex Eternis is a 3-in-1 CRS. It is significantly heavier than
the average weight of all 2019 EOU program forward-facing capable CRSs
with a harness. This CRS is also much heavier than the average weight
of BPBs in the 2019 EOU program. Its footprint is larger than the
average footprint of 3-in-1 CRSs in the 2019 EOU program. It also has a
unique footprint configuration. Based on its weight and footprint
characteristics we propose adding it to Subparts C and D.
12. Addition of the Safety 1st Grow and Go #CC138-- to Subparts C&D
The Safety 1st Grow and Go #CC138-- is a 3-in-1 CRS. It weighs less
than the average forward-facing capable CRSs with a harness in the 2019
EOU program. Its footprint width is narrower than the average forward-
facing capable CRS with a harness in the 2019 EOU program. It also has
a unique footprint. Based on these evaluated characteristics we propose
adding it to Subparts C and D.
13. Addition of the Evenflo Chase #306-- to Subparts C&D
The Evenflo Chase #306-- is a combination CRS. It weighs less than
the average weight of all 2019 EOU program forward-facing capable CRSs
with a harness and BPBs. Its footprint is wider than the average
footprint of combination CRSs in the 2019 EOU program. It also has a
unique footprint with limited seat contact surface area. Based on its
footprint characteristics we propose adding it to Subparts C and D.
14. Addition of the Cosco Finale #BC121-- to Subparts C&D
The Cosco Finale #BC121-- is a combination CRS. Its weight is
lighter than the average weight of combination CRSs in the 2019 EOU
program and, as a BPB, its weight is lighter than the average weight of
BPBs in the 2019 EOU program. The footprint is smaller than the average
footprint of combination CRSs in the 2019 EOU program. It also has a
unique footprint shape. Based on its footprint characteristics we
propose adding it to Subparts C and D.
15. Addition of the Chicco MyFit #04079783--0070 to Subparts C&D
The Chicco MyFit #04079783--0070 is a combination CRS. It is
slightly heavier than the average weight of combination CRSs in the
2019 EOU program. Its footprint is slightly smaller than the average
footprint of combination CRSs in the 2019 EOU program. It is a
combination with high sales volume. Based on its weight, footprint
size, and high sales volume we propose adding it to Subparts C and D.
16. Addition of the Cosco Rise Belt-Positioning Booster Seat #BC126--
to Subpart D
The Cosco Rise Belt-Positioning Booster Seat #BC126-- is a backless
BPB that was evaluated in the 2018 EOU program. Its weight is lighter
than the average weight of backless BPBs in the 2019 EOU program. It is
a BPB with high sales volume. It also has a unique footprint
configuration. Based on its weight and high sales volume we propose
adding it to Subpart D.
17. Addition of the Graco Backless TurboBooster to Subpart D
The Graco Backless TurboBooster is a backless BPB. Its weight is
lighter than the average weight of backless BPBs in the 2019 EOU
program. Its footprint is wider than the average footprint of all BPBs
in the 2019 EOU program. It is a BPB with high sales volume. It also
has a unique footprint shape. Therefore, based on its footprint
characteristics, weight, and high sales volume we propose adding it to
Subpart D.
18. Addition of the Britax Grow with You #E1C19-- to Subpart D
The Britax Grow with You #E1C19-- is a combination CRS that was
evaluated in the 2018 EOU program. Its weight is heavier than the
average weight of combination CRSs in the 2019 EOU program. Its
footprint is representative of the average footprint of all combination
CRSs in the 2019 EOU program. It also has a flat footprint. Therefore,
based on its footprint characteristics and weight we propose adding it
to Subpart D.
19. Further Analysis of Proposed Rear-Facing CRS Additions
As discussed in the earlier section titled ``Additional
Considerations for Rear-Facing CRSs,'' we analyzed the

[[Page 68548]]

height of the proposed CRS additions to ensure that the appendix would
have a wide range of rear-facing child restraint seat back heights. In
the 2019 EOU program, the seat back heights for rear-facing infant and
other rear-facing capable CRSs range from 14.875 inch (in.) to 26.75
in.^{14 15} The proposed additions to Subpart B have seat back
heights that range from 14.875 in. to 26.25 in. Furthermore, CRSs that
are being added to Subpart C that have the capability of being
installed in a rear-facing or forward-facing mode can also be used for
testing in the rear-facing mode. We are proposing to add eight CRSs to
Subpart C that are convertible between rear and forward-facing and
their seat back heights in the rear-facing mode range from 18.375 in.
to 19.75 in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ The upper end of the spectrum represents convertible CRSs
with inherently higher seat back heights in the rear-facing mode.
\15\ The height measurement used for the rear-facing infant CRSs
is the height with their base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, the ``Additional Considerations for Rear-Facing CRSs''
section also discussed the need to include in Appendix A-1 rear-facing
infant CRSs with sunshields and handle bars. All the proposed rear-
facing infant CRS additions have sunshields and handle bars.

V. Integration of New Appendix A-1 in the Regulatory Text

NHTSA therefore proposes to remove the current Appendix A (which
has been phased out), redesignate Appendix A-1 as Appendix A, and add
the new list of CRSs described above as Appendix A-1. Designating the
current CRS list ``Appendix A'' and the updated CRS list ``Appendix A-
1'' simplifies the implementation of this proposed rule because it
allows NHTSA to use the phase-in schedule from the 2008 final rule
(located in FMVSS No. 208, S14.8) by simply adjusting the mandatory
compliance dates to correspond to this rulemaking.

VI. Proposed Compliance Dates and Phase-in Period

NHTSA is proposing a phase-in of the requirement to test with the
child restraints in the revised appendix. Under the phase-in, 50
percent of vehicles manufactured on or after the first September 1st
after the publication date of the final rule must be certified as
meeting FMVSS No. 208 when tested with the CRSs on the revised Appendix
A-1, and all vehicles manufactured on or after the second September 1st
after the publication date of the final rule must be so certified.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ As with all phase-ins, the agency is adopting a reporting
and recordkeeping requirement to facilitate the agency's enforcement
of the standard. The existing reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, set forth in 49 CFR part 585, subpart D, will be
updated per the proposed compliance dates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This approach would provide manufacturers with sufficient lead time
to purchase and implement the new CRSs in their compliance testing, and
allow manufacturers to tie their certification to the automatic
suppression requirements or LRD requirement with the introduction of a
new model year, thereby reducing testing burden. In addition, this
phase-in ensures that suppression and LRD systems will be tested with
representative child restraints in an expeditious manner and thus
maintains the robustness of the FMVSS No. 208 test and the soundness of
the child protection systems in recognizing today's CRSs.
As in the past, we are in support of early compliance with the
appendix, i.e., a manufacturer may choose to certify more than 50
percent of their vehicles in the first year of the phase-in. However,
we note that, within the phase-in period manufacturers are not
permitted to pick and choose among the CRSs in Appendix A and A-1
within an individual vehicle certification. This restriction on
voluntary early compliance is necessary for the agency to best use its
resources in enforcing the phase-in requirements. Permitting
manufacturers to selectively apply portions of Appendix A and A-1 for
an individual vehicle would impede NHTSA's ability to conduct
compliance testing because the agency would need to know how a
manufacturer certified each individual CRS-related requirement in FMVSS
No. 208 for the vehicle in question. Collecting this additional data
would require additional agency time and enforcement resources, as well
as a more expansive information collection process of manufacturers'
compliance data than we believe is appropriate. We do not believe that
the safety benefits of allowing manufacturers to pick and choose among
the CRSs in the appendices for a single vehicle outweigh these
additional burdens on the agency's enforcement of the advanced air bag
requirements.

VII. Benefits and Costs Associated With the Proposed Rule

The proposed rule does not amend any of the FMVSS No. 208
performance test requirements; it merely updates the list of CRSs NHTSA
can use for advanced air bag performance compliance tests. The proposed
update would mitigate the risk of injury to children in CRSs from air
bags by testing with CRSs that are representative of those that are in
production today. However, we cannot quantify the incremental benefits
of testing with these new CRSs over those listed in the current
Appendix A-1, due to a lack of field performance test data. We are not
aware of any injuries to children caused by vehicle manufacturers using
outdated (unrepresentative) CRSs to certify their advanced air bag
systems. Relatedly, we also note that most children are seated in rear
seats as passengers, so they are not exposed to advanced air bag
systems. However, if there were a child in the front passenger seat, we
believe that there is an unreasonable risk of injury associated with an
advanced air bag system either not ``recognizing'' the CRS and/or not
interacting with it in a low risk manner during deployment. Updating
the CRSs used to assess the performance of advanced air bags mitigates
that risk by enabling manufacturers to design advanced air bag systems
to factor in the features and characteristics of the CRSs used today.
Compliance with the proposal would result in a nominal cost to
vehicle manufacturers for the purchase of the new CRSs. The agency
estimates that a complete set of all the CRSs (20 CRSs) in the proposed
new Appendix A-1 is $3,364 in 2020 dollars. However, the proposed rule
not only adds 18 unique CRSs to the appendices, but also removes 17
unique CRSs. Thus, in the absence of a large change in the price of a
CRS on the list, the net change to the list is the addition of a unique
CRS to the collection expected to be purchased by manufacturers. Since
the $3,364 represents 20 CRSs, one of which is an incremental addition,
1/20th of that price is the incremental cost due to the proposed rule.
Thus, the proposed rule would create an increased cost of $168.20 per
model, per year for manufacturers.
Based on previous experience, we assume that after 10 years all
CRSs in the appendix will no longer be in production and might require
another update to Appendix A-1.\17\ Additionally, we estimate that each
vehicle manufacturer will purchase 10 complete sets for each production
line over that time or on average 1 complete set per year per line.
Based on the 2017 Wards Automotive Yearbook,\18\ we estimate that there
were a total of 248

[[Page 68549]]

production lines among the U.S. vehicle manufacturers in 2021. In other
words, we expect the entire 248 production lines will be updated (to be
in compliance with the proposed rule) in a period of 10 years.
Therefore, the total 10 year cost to all vehicle manufacturers
cumulatively would be $417,136 (=$168.20 x 248 x 10) over 10 years for
those vehicle lines. Assuming an annual production of 16 million
vehicles,\19\ there would be 160 million vehicles for the same period
of 10 year. Thus, the per vehicle cost is $0.003 ($417,136/160 million)
annually. We believe that these minor changes in the content of the
appendix will not significantly impact the cost of compliance testing
over manufacturer's current practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ We note that the frequency of past updates to the Appendix
is not determinative of future updates. However, a shorter update
period would likely mean fewer changes would be made.
\18\ Published by WardsAuto, a division of Penton.
\19\ This rulemaking would only affect vehicles with advanced
air bags. We estimate that 16 million vehicles are produced annually
with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lb or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We believe this is a conservative estimate (i.e., an overestimate)
for the following reasons. We acknowledge that some manufacturers may
purchase fewer of some CRSs (if their vehicles are equipped with air
bag suppression systems) or more of some CRSs (if they are equipped
with LRD air bags).\20\ Therefore, we consider this a high estimate for
the number of complete sets vehicle manufacturers will purchase,
because, based on our experience, one set can be used to certify
several vehicle models for several years. Vehicle manufacturers would
also save an unquantified amount of time and money because they will no
longer need to acquire the existing Appendix A-1 CRSs that are out of
production. In addition, we believe vehicle manufacturers are testing
their advanced air bag systems with CRSs that are not in the appendix,
so it is possible that they already possess and have conducted testing
with most of the proposed CRS additions, particularly the popular CRSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ The lineup of CRSs that a manufacturer actually purchases
will likely vary depending on what type of advanced air bag system
the manufacturer chooses for its vehicles. For example, a
manufacturer that chooses the LRD compliance option for all the
child-sized dummies may purchase 10 sets of the CRSs in Subpart B, 3
sets of the CRSs in Subpart C, and none of the CRSs in Subpart A and
D (Subpart A and D CRSs are not used for LRD testing).
Alternatively, a manufacturer that chooses the suppression option
for all the child-sized dummies may purchase just one set of all the
CRSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by
logging onto the Docket website at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

If you wish the Docket to notify you upon its receipt of your
comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope
containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, the Docket will
return the postcard by mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to the docket at the address given above under
ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be
confidential business information, you should include a cover letter
setting forth the information specified in our confidential business
information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

Will the agency consider late comments?

We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments that the docket receives after
that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider
in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will
consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking
action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

You may read the comments received by the docket at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated
above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the
internet. To read the comments on the internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file
comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.

IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Order 2100.6

We have considered the potential impact of this proposed rule under
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and DOT Order 2100.6 and have determined
that it is nonsignificant. This rulemaking document was not reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866. The costs
and benefits of advanced air bags are discussed in the agency's Final
Economic Assessment for the May 2000 final rule (Docket No. NHTSA-00-
7013). The cost and benefit analysis provided in that document would
not be affected by this NPRM, since this NPRM only adjusts and updates
the CRSs used in test procedures of that final rule.
The agency estimates that compliance with the proposal would result
in a nominal total annual cost to all vehicle manufacturers
cumulatively of $417,136 (over ten years) for the purchase of the new
CRSs. Assuming an annual production of 16 million vehicles (with a GVWR
of 8,500 lb or less), the per vehicle cost is $0.003 annually for the
purchase of the new CRSs. More information can be found in the
``Benefits and Costs Associated with the Proposed Rule'' section above
in this preamble. The minimal impacts of today's proposed amendment do
not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation.

[[Page 68550]]

Executive Order 13771

E.O. 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs,'' directs that, unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive
department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or
otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two
existing regulations to be repealed. In addition, any new incremental
costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by
law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs. Only those rules
deemed significant under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory
Planning and Review,'' are subject to these requirements. This proposed
rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this
proposed rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 60l et
seq., NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities.
I hereby certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The NPRM would affect
motor vehicle manufacturers, multistage manufacturers and alterers, but
the entities that qualify as small businesses would not be
significantly affected by this rulemaking because they are already
required to comply with the advanced air bag requirements. This
proposed rule would not establish new requirements, but instead would
only adjust and update the CRSs used in FMVSS No. 208's test procedures
for advanced air bags. The small manufacturers would continue to
certify their vehicles as meeting the advanced air bag requirements
using the same methods and procedures they use today, only with more
current CRSs.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

NHTSA has examined today's proposed rule pursuant to E.O. 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. Today's proposed rule would
not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.''
NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express
preemption provision stating that, if NHTSA has established a standard
for an aspect motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance a
State may only prescribe or continue in effect a standard for that same
aspect of performance if the State standard is identical to the Federal
standard. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by
Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and
administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance.
The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules--even if not expressly preempted.
This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon the
existence of an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher
standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle
manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment
against the manufacturer--notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance
with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an
FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action
that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers
will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict
does exist--for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum
and a maximum standard--the State common law tort cause of action is
impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S.
861 (2000).
Pursuant to E.O. 13132, NHTSA has considered whether this proposed
rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The
agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive
effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will
be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's
proposed rule and finds that this proposed rule, like many NHTSA rules,
prescribes only a minimum safety standard. Accordingly, NHTSA does not
intend that this proposed rule preempt state tort law that would
effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers
than that established by today's proposal. Establishment of a higher
standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the minimum
standard proposed in this document. Without any conflict, there could
not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of
action.

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this NPRM for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation
of this action would not have any significant impact on the quality of
the human environment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid
OMB control number. This proposed rule contains a collection of
information because of the phase-in reporting requirements being
established. There is no burden to the general public. We will be
submitting a request for OMB clearance for the collection of
information required for this proposed rule.
These requirements and our estimates of the burden to vehicle
manufacturers are as follows:
NHTSA estimates there are 20 manufacturers of passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses having a GVWR of
3,856 kg (8,500 lb) or less.
NHTSA estimates that the annual reporting and recordkeeping burden
on each manufacturer resulting from the collection of information is
one (1) hour. NHTSA estimates that the annual cost burden on each
manufacturer, in U.S. dollars, on each manufacturer will be $42.71. No
additional resources will be expended by vehicle manufacturers to
gather annual production information because they already compile this
data for their own use.
The purpose of the reporting requirements will be to aid NHTSA in
determining whether a manufacturer

[[Page 68551]]

has complied with the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 during the phase-in
of the proposed requirements.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.'' There are no voluntary consensus standards that
address the CRSs that should be included in Appendix A-1.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this proposed rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further
that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This NPRM would not
result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $100 million annually.

Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. This rulemaking is not subject to
the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as
defined in E.O. 12866.

Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any
rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse
effect on the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) that
is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. This rulemaking is
not subject to E.O. 13211.

Plain Language

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this proposal.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Rubber and rubber products.

49 CFR Part 585

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
chapter V as set forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

0
2. Amend Section 571.208 by adding a sentence to the end of S1 and
revising S14.8 appendix A, and appendix A-1 to read as follows:

Sec. 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection.

* * * * *
S14.8 Vehicles manufactured on or after [DATE OF FIRST SEPTEMBER
1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] and before [DATE OF SECOND
SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE]. Vehicles manufactured
on or after [DATE OF FIRST SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE] and before [DATE OF SECOND SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE], shall comply with S14.8.1 through S14.8.4. At any time
during the production year ending August 31, [Year of first September
1st after publication of final rule], each manufacturer shall, upon
request from the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide
information identifying the vehicles by make, model and vehicle
identification number that have been certified as complying with S19,
S21, and S23 of this standard (in addition to the other requirements
specified in this standard) when using the child restraint systems
specified in appendix A-1 of this standard. The manufacturer's
designation of a vehicle as meeting the requirements when using the
child restraint systems in appendix A-1 of this standard is
irrevocable.
S14.8.1 Subject to S14.8.2, for vehicles manufactured on or after
[DATE OF FIRST SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], the
number of vehicles certified as complying with S19, S21, and S23 of
this standard when using the child

[[Page 68552]]

restraint systems specified in appendix A-1 of this standard shall be
not less than 50 percent of:
(a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles
subject to S19, S21, and S23 of this standard manufactured on or after
[Three years prior to DATE OF FIRST SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE] and before [DATE OF FIRST SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION
OF FINAL RULE]; or
(b) The manufacturer's production of vehicles subject to S19, S21,
and S23 of this standard manufactured on or after [DATE OF FIRST
SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] and before [DATE OF
SECOND SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE].
S14.8.2 For the purpose of calculating average annual production of
vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles manufactured
by each manufacturer under S14.8.1, a vehicle produced by more than one
manufacturer shall be attributed to a single manufacturer as provided
in S14.8.2(a) through (c), subject to S14.8.3.
(a) A vehicle which is imported shall be attributed to the
importer.
(b) A vehicle manufactured in the United States by more than one
manufacturer, one of which also markets the vehicle, shall be
attributed to the manufacturer which markets the vehicle.
(c) A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer shall be
attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an
express written contract, reported to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration under 49 CFR part 585, between the manufacturer
so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise
be attributed under S14.8.2(a) or (b).
S14.8.3 For the purposes of calculating average annual production
of vehicle for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles by each
manufacturer under S14.8.1, each vehicle that is excluded from the
requirement to test with child restraints listed in appendix A or A-1
of this standard is not counted.
S14.8.4 Until [DATE OF THIRD SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE], vehicles manufactured by a final-stage manufacturer or
alterer could be certified as complying with S19, S21, and S23 of this
standard when using the child restraint systems specified in appendix A
of this standard. Vehicles manufactured on or after [Date of third
September 1st after publication of final rule] by these manufacturers
must be certified as complying with S19, S21, and S23 when using the
child restraint systems specified in appendix A-1.
S14.8.5 Until [DATE OF THIRD SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE], manufacturers selling fewer than 5,000 vehicles per year
in the U.S. may certify their vehicles as complying with S19, S21, and
S23 when using the child restraint systems specified in Appendix A.
Vehicles manufactured on or after [Date of third September 1st after
publication of final rule] by these manufacturers must be certified as
complying with S19, S21, and S23 of this standard when using the child
restraint systems specified in Appendix A-1 of this standard.
* * * * *

Appendix A to Sec. 571.208--Selection of Child Restraint Systems

This appendix A applies to vehicles manufactured before [DATE OF
FIRST SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] and to not more
than 50 percent of a manufacturer's vehicles manufactured on or after
[DATE OF FIRST SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] and
before [DATE OF SECOND SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE],
as specified in S14.8 of this standard. This appendix does not apply to
vehicles manufactured on or after [DATE OF SECOND SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE].
A. The following car bed, manufactured on or after the date listed,
may be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to
test the suppression system of a vehicle that has been certified as
being in compliance with S19 of this standard:

Subpart A--Car Bed Child Restraints of Appendix A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufactured on or after
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Guard Angel Ride XX2403XXX....... September 25, 2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Any of the following rear-facing child restraint systems
specified in the table below, manufactured on or after the date listed,
may be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to
test the suppression or low risk deployment (LRD) system of a vehicle
that has been certified as being in compliance with S19 of this
standard. When the restraint system comes equipped with a removable
base, the test may be run either with the base attached or without the
base.

Subpart B--Rear-Facing Child Restraints of Appendix A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufactured on or after
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Century Smart Fit 4543................. December 1, 1999.
Cosco Arriva 22-013 PAW and base 22-999 September 25, 2007.
WHO.
Evenflo Discovery Adjust Right 212..... December 1, 1999.
Graco Infant 8457...................... December 1, 1999.
Graco Snugride......................... September 25, 2007.
Peg Perego Primo Viaggio SIP IMUN00US.. September 25, 2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Any of the following forward-facing child restraint systems, and
forward-facing child restraint systems that also convert to rear-
facing, manufactured on or after the date listed, may be used by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to test the suppression
or LRD system of a vehicle that has been certified as being in
compliance with S19 or S21 of this standard. (Note: Any child restraint
listed in this subpart that does not have manufacturer instructions for
using it in a rear-facing position is excluded from use in testing in a
belted rear-facing configuration under S20.2.1.1(a) and S20.4.2 of this
standard):

Subpart C--Forward-Facing and Convertible Child Restraints of Appendix A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufactured on or after
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Roundabout E9L02xx.............. September 25, 2007.
Graco ComfortSport..................... September 25, 2007.
Cosco Touriva 02519.................... December 1, 1999.
Evenflo Tribute V 379xxxx or Evenflo September 25, 2007.
Tribute 381xxxx.
Evenflo Medallion 254.................. December 1, 1999.
Cosco Summit Deluxe High Back Booster September 25, 2007.
22-262.
Evenflo Generations 352xxxx............ September 25, 2007.
Graco Toddler SafeSeat Step 2.......... September 25, 2007.
Graco Platinum Cargo................... September 25, 2007.
Cosco High Back Booster 22-209......... September 25, 2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Any of the following forward-facing child restraint systems and
belt positioning seats, manufactured on or after the date listed, may
be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as test
devices to test the suppression system of a vehicle that has been
certified as being in compliance with r S23 of this standard:

[[Page 68553]]

Subpart D--Forward-Facing Child Restraints and Belt Positioning Seats of
Appendix A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufactured on or after
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Roadster 9004................... December 1, 1999.
Graco Platinum Cargo................... September 25, 2007.
Cosco High Back Booster 22-209......... September 25, 2007.
Evenflo Right Fit 245.................. December 1, 1999.
Evenflo Generations 352xxxx............ September 25, 2007.
Cosco Summit Deluxe High Back Booster September 25, 2007.
22-262.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix A-1 to Sec. 571.208--Selection of Child Restraint Systems

This appendix A-1 applies to not less than 50 percent of a
manufacturer's vehicles manufactured on or after [DATE OF FIRST
SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] and before [DATE OF
SECOND SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], as specified in
S14.8 of this standard. This appendix applies to all vehicles
manufactured on or after [DATE OF SECOND SEPTEMBER 1ST AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE].
A. The following car bed, manufactured on or after [Date of
publication of final rule], may be used by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration to test the suppression system of a vehicle that
has been certified as being in compliance with S19 of this standard:

Subpart A--Car Bed Child Restraints of Appendix A-1

Safety 1st Dreamride SE LATCH #IC238--

B. Any of the following rear-facing child restraint systems
specified in the table below, manufactured on or after [Date of
publication of final rule], may be used by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration to test the suppression or low risk deployment
(LRD) system of a vehicle that has been certified as being in
compliance with S19 of this standard. When the restraint system comes
equipped with a removable base, the test may be run either with the
base attached or without the base.

Subpart B--Rear-Facing Child Restraints of Appendix A-1

Evenflo Embrace #315--
Chicco Keyfit 30 #04061472--
Doona Car Seat & Stroller
Britax B-Safe 35 #E1A72--
Cybex Aton 2
Evenflo Nurture #362--

C. Any of the following forward-facing child restraint systems, and
forward-facing child restraint systems that also convert to rear-
facing, manufactured on or after [Date of publication of final rule],
may be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to
test the suppression or LRD system of a vehicle that has been certified
as being in compliance with S19 or S21 of this standard. (Note: Any
child restraint listed in this subpart that does not have manufacturer
instructions for using it in a rear-facing position is excluded from
use in testing in a belted rear-facing configuration under S20.2.1.1(a)
and S20.4.2 of this standard):

Subpart C--Forward-Facing and Convertible Child Restraints of Appendix
A-1

Britax Marathon ClickTight #E1A38--
Cosco Scenera Next #CC123--
Graco 4Ever All-in-1
Britax Allegiance # E9LR4--
Graco Contender 65
Cybex Eternis
Safety 1st Grow and Go #CC138--
Evenflo Chase #306--
Cosco Finale #BC121--
Chicco MyFit #04079783--0070

D. Any of the following forward-facing child restraint systems and
belt positioning seats, manufactured on or after [DATE OF PUBLICATION
OF FINAL RULE], may be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration as test devices to test the suppression system of a
vehicle that has been certified as being in compliance with S21 or S23
of this standard:

Subpart D--Forward-Facing Child Restraints and Belt Positioning Seats
of Appendix A-1

Chicco MyFit #04079783--0070
Cybex Eternis
Safety 1st Grow and Go #CC138--
Evenflo Chase #306--
Cosco Finale #BC121--
Cosco Rise Belt-Positioning Booster Seat #BC126--
Graco Backless TurboBooster
Britax Grow with You #E1C19--
* * * * *

PART 585--PHASE-IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

0
3. The authority citation for part 585 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

0
4. Revise sections 585.35 through 585.37 to read as follows:
* * * * *
Sec.
585.35 Response to inquiries.
585.36 Reporting requirements.
585.37 Records.
* * * * *

Sec. 585.35 Response to inquiries.

At any time during the production year ending [DATE OF SECOND
AUGUST 31ST AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], each manufacturer shall,
upon request from the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide
information identifying the vehicles (by make, model and vehicle
identification number) that have been certified as complying with the
requirements of 49 CFR 571.208 (Standard No. 208) when using the child
restraint systems specified in appendix A-1 of that standard. The
manufacturer's designation of a vehicle as a certified vehicle is
irrevocable.

Sec. 585.36 Reporting requirements.

(a) Phase-in reporting requirements. Within 60 days after the end
of the production year ending [DATE OF SECOND AUGUST 31ST AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], each manufacturer shall submit a report to
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning its
compliance with requirements of 49 CFR 571.208 (Standard No. 208) when
using the child restraint systems specified in appendix A-1 of that
standard for its vehicles produced in that year. Each report shall
provide the information specified in paragraph (b) of this section and
in Sec. 585.2.
(b) Phase-in report content--(1) Basis for phase-in production
goals. Each manufacturer shall provide the number of vehicles
manufactured in the current production year, or, at the manufacturer's
option, in each of the three previous production years. A new
manufacturer that is, for the first time, manufacturing passenger cars,
trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles or buses for sale in the United
States must report the number of passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose
passenger vehicles or buses manufactured during the current production
year.
(2) Production of complying vehicles. Each manufacturer shall
report on the number of vehicles that meet the requirements of Standard
No. 208 when using the child restraint systems specified in appendix A-
1 of that standard.

[[Page 68554]]

Sec. 585.37 Records.

Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle
Identification Number for each vehicle for which information is
reported under Sec. 585.36 until [DATE OF FIFTH DECEMBER 31ST AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE].
* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.8.
James C. Owens,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-21476 Filed 10-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P